War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

Status
Not open for further replies.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article
 
Rybar on ruzzkie state TV: 'around half of VDV pedos are now in hell':

source: https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1620409293353918464

I didn't expect such losses, I assumed they lost about 20-30% of VDV. So what is the VDV intended for? Most of the shit the paratroopers got in the early stages of the war, before the NATO toys arrived


One of the interesting aspects of the war has been the inability of Aircraft on either side to influence the battle.

Even the fighters that are flying sorties seem to be just taking off and firing their ordinance from within their own protected airspace
This situation has been going on since 2014. But trust me bro: Soviet era jets and their descendants are pure, refined shit.

It's not a matter of the difference between the old AK-47 and the modern AR. Or like between Abrams and T-64. The difference between any Su or MiG and an F-16 (let alone an F-35) is like the difference between a crossbow and an X-Wing.

Heavily modernized MiGs in NATO countries are still a category III aircraft, even compared to old Western machines. I would be concerned about the outcome of a fight between F-14s (are there any more flying anywhere?) with four MiGs.

The topic of Eurofighters, Mirage or, looking more exotically, Mitsubishi - it's hard for me to say, they would rather give way to any modern American design, but they would rather quickly ground the MiGs.
 
Last edited:
If I was commanding a Sherman in WWII and I wasn't complete confidant in the tank and crew, I'd be tempted to just disconnect it.
Which is what happened with a lot of them, actually. It was a very secret technology due to how advanced it was, so secret crews often had no idea how to maintain it. Experienced crews could and did put it to excellent use, however, and by Normandy US Armored Forces were quite experienced, with no shortage of combat veterans in their ranks, especially since training practices had been constantly updated and revised as new information came in from the frontlines.
Even the fighters that are flying sorties seem to be just taking off and firing their ordinance from within their own protected airspace. I don't think anybody expected that the role of 4th generation fighters would be to just be a shuttle service for cruise missiles that can't be ground launched.
As the poster above me said, Russian planes are shit compared to Western ones. Go compare the Su-27 to its intended prey of the F-15, and the introduction years of each plane, and then laugh.
This is a 1992 post-Soviet design.
This is from 1979.

The F-15 is smaller, lighter, faster, more maneuverable, and somehow still manages to have more range and a higher maximum payload than a plane 13 years younger than it.
 
One of the interesting aspects of the war has been the inability of Aircraft on either side to influence the battle.

Even the fighters that are flying sorties seem to be just taking off and firing their ordinance from within their own protected airspace. I don't think anybody expected that the role of 4th generation fighters would be to just be a shuttle service for cruise missiles that can't be ground launched.

Attack Helicopters are in even a worse situation, unable to operate in an environment where everybody and his dog has a MANPADS. The Russians are uniquely fucked because the wide variety of MANPADS used, means selecting a countermeasures packages would be extremely difficult (all those flares they're firing out have to be tuned to a specific threat, and if you see them dropping massive flares it's because they've given up and are just trying to overwhelm the seeker).

Anyway I think the provision of F16/Grippens or whatever is just a red herring, what the Ukrainians want, is for the Ammunition to keep flowing in, and they can just let their Artillery do the work.

One thing I'm curious about is what state the production of Ukrainian indigenous cruise missiles is in. They were supposed to start series production of the R360 (the missile that sunk Moskva in 2021). The west doesn't want them hitting targets in Russia, and they may want to wait until they have a decent stockpile of them.
I think this is what annoys me the most about this war. I was always of the opinion the Wunder Waffle stealth aircraft were just that, wunder waffles. This war seems to indicate very strongly that this may not actually be true. If shit actually throws down with China, we may find every 4th generation fighter, including the F-18s that are still the backbone of the US Fleet until the Naval Mod of the F-35 gets its kinks shaken out are obsolete.

Now to be sure, Quantity does have its own quality. The US Army Air Force took horrendous losses in the bombings of Germany and just stop gapped them by making a shit ton of cheap heavy bombers with minimally trained crews of draftees running the show behind the pilot. But after the war it became pretty clear that the bombing campaigns did little accomplish the actual objectives set out for them.
 
The F-15 is smaller, lighter, faster, more maneuverable, and somehow still manages to have more range and a higher maximum payload than a plane 13 years younger than it.
And about the armament. Missile guidance (somehow the MiGs, Su and Tu can hit only something big and stationary, and that's it for air-to-surface missiles. I doubt air-to-air is any better). failure rate.

This is the mass. On the one hand, this is an advantage (seriously, in the event of a war with NATO, they have no chance in the air) and on the other, a problem with the current deliveries (there is no point in giving Ukraine MiGs and Su from NATO countries, because they are powdered corpses).
The US Army Air Force took horrendous losses in the bombings of Germany and just stop gapped them by making a shit ton of cheap heavy bombers with minimally trained crews of draftees running the show behind the pilot. But after the war it became pretty clear that the bombing campaigns did little accomplish the actual objectives set out for them.
I agree with the quality of the aircraft of the time, although the P-51 or B-29 were very successful for their time. Well, relatively - you have to remember that the years 1943-1953 were for aviation what the years 1993-2003 were for personal computers.

I don't agree with the effects of air strikes - the declared goal (breaking the enemy's morale) was not achieved, but the second important goal (limiting enemy production and killing him enough people to limit mobilization) was partly so.
 
Last edited:
I think this is what annoys me the most about this war. I was always of the opinion the Wunder Waffle stealth aircraft were just that, wunder waffles. This war seems to indicate very strongly that this may not actually be true. If shit actually throws down with China, we may find every 4th generation fighter, including the F-18s that are still the backbone of the US Fleet until the Naval Mod of the F-35 gets its kinks shaken out are obsolete.

Now to be sure, Quantity does have its own quality. The US Army Air Force took horrendous losses in the bombings of Germany and just stop gapped them by making a shit ton of cheap heavy bombers with minimally trained crews of draftees running the show behind the pilot. But after the war it became pretty clear that the bombing campaigns did little accomplish the actual objectives set out for them.
I think what's happened is that ability for SAM missile systems to be easily upgraded, is coming into play. Whether it's the launchers, Radars or command posts. To the point that they're racing ahead of countermeasures.

The western answer is dedicated ECM platforms, and to swamp a defended area with cheap Anti Radiation Missiles. It's not the 1980's though, radars are much more mobile and don't need to stay in one place to be erected (the new British Army SAM being a notable exception). When each battery has multiple redundant radars that they can switch on and off, and the battlefield isn't an open desert, I wonder how that will work. Also if a SAM Battery is targeting something like an $80million F35, that would justify a commander launching every missile he's got. It doesn't matter how stealthy an F35 if the sky is full of proximity fused missiles that have a rough idea where it is.
 
iranrus.jpg
 
Rybar on ruzzkie state TV: 'around half of VDV pedos are now in hell':

source: https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1620409293353918464

I didn't expect such losses, I assumed they lost about 20-30% of VDV. So what is the VDV intended for? Most of the shit the paratroopers got in the early stages of the war, before the NATO toys arrived
I know it's tw*tter but Rybar is a Russian shill so that spells bad news for the VDV. I guess at this point now they and their proprietary airborne vehicles are just being repurposed as mechanized infantry. It would be very bad if he is actually understating their losses. I wonder how many Russian military units have been so mutilated they are effectively shut down/inactive with any remaining manpower used to fill gaps in other units.
 
But after the war it became pretty clear that the bombing campaigns did little accomplish the actual objectives set out for them.
Eh, yes and no. No, because the Air Force was hoping for that one golden BB of a target that would completely ruin German production for good, but yes, because god damn did it contribute massively to attempts to wear down their industry over time. The oil campaign was painful, the attrition from raids on machinery and tools meant German industry peaked in 1943 under Speer's reforms but declined sharply after that as they ran out of spare industry as it was all mobilized. The Germans had up to 350,000 men doing nothing but repairing and reinforcing their synthetics plants once we began raiding them, as a short example of just what they were forced to devote to undoing those efforts.

And then of course once we went after transportation infrastructure everything just shut down as coal couldn't go anywhere since there weren't any trains or barges to move it places.

I've attached the summary of the immediately post-war US Strategic Bombing Survey that should be some brief but informative reading.
Also if a SAM Battery is targeting something like an $80million F35, that would justify a commander launching every missile he's got. It doesn't matter how stealthy an F35 if the sky is full of proximity fused missiles that have a rough idea where it is.
Trouble is there's not just the one plane. Something like what you mentioned happened when Francis Gary Powers overflew the USSR, and it turns out we could have sent half our bombers through the air defense gap that was formed by the time the Soviets reloaded their missiles. They launched 14, one hit the plane, and another hit the MiG-15 that had been sent to try and intercept, the pilot forced to eject and later dying of his injuries.

Those missiles weren't exactly small and easy to reload on their launchers, either:
1675198341821.png
Plus, the USA has literally written all of the books on SEAD and Wild Weasel, and yes, radars do need to be emplaced and immobile to act as fire control, especially for the massive systems. Go take a look at the S-300 on Wikipedia and the size of those long-range radars. Even mounted on trucks like they are they still need to deploy, unpack, and connect to their networks... and all that means they can be spotted and targeted by drones and long-range cruise missiles, especially since Russian short-range air defense hasn't exactly proven up to the task of stopping those intercepts.
 

Attachments

That's a laughable reward, considering cost of the tank itself.
source: Twitter and 9gag
LMAO

View attachment 4383060
View attachment 4383064
View attachment 4383072
View attachment 4383076


KURWA lol

Edit since Twatter links are obligatory for certain people, here you go: https://twitter.com/T_90_M/with_replies


Also, it should be noted the person who posted this allegation it didn't post any links as well (understandable since 9GAG is pretty suspect), just a letter in poor Russian only someone unfamiliar with the language would write,
1) Just how many socks do you have on KF?
2) There's absolutely nothing wrong with how the letter is composed, if you're talking about the one @Sprawy Handlowe PPHU provided. You're being retarded, stop embarrassing yourself.
It might still be fake, but your purported familiarity with the language is questionable to say the least.
 
Last edited:
You're being retarded, stop embarrassing yourself.
It might still be fake, but your purported familiarity with the language is questionable to say the least.
It is always funny to see when westerners are sperging about slavic languages.

Rule of thumb: most slavic languages have dialects that are different from the language of literature (i.e. the main one you learn in college and school - I have no idea and I don't want to know if there is an english name for that). Sometimes very radically, sometimes even a dialect of one language is closer to the neighboring language than to its "parent" language. This is the case with slovak dialects, for example: it has three very different ones, one of which is very similar to polish and ukrainian, the second is the basis for the official language, and the third is actually a variant of the czech language.

Poles have similar issues, in practice there are three dialects of the polish language: official, kashubian, silesian. There is no chance for users of the last two to get along.

Other sort of chaos isin the Balkans, once croatian andserbian were two equal dialects of one language (and that was recently, sometime until 1970), now they are considered two separate languages. Recently, montenegrin and bosnian were recognized as separate languages, 40 years ago they were simply dialects of serbo-croatian.

I will not tell you about the orc language, I do not know it and I have not had contact with it - I will only explain that the famous maps "half of Ukraine speaks the orc language" is nonsense. This area is using surzhycs (I don't care if their is a proper name in eglish for that), i.e. mixed dialects of ukrainian and russian.

These are MUCH bigger differences than between english in Australia and english in London. Literally two people who, in theory, use the same language in the same country may not understand each other (a Pole speaking kashubian and a Pole speaking silesian), when two people a few countries away can (a Croat will understand a Montenegrin, as long as they both speak the official language) .
 
Eh, yes and no. No, because the Air Force was hoping for that one golden BB of a target that would completely ruin German production for good, but yes, because god damn did it contribute massively to attempts to wear down their industry over time. The oil campaign was painful, the attrition from raids on machinery and tools meant German industry peaked in 1943 under Speer's reforms but declined sharply after that as they ran out of spare industry as it was all mobilized. The Germans had up to 350,000 men doing nothing but repairing and reinforcing their synthetics plants once we began raiding them, as a short example of just what they were forced to devote to undoing those efforts.

And then of course once we went after transportation infrastructure everything just shut down as coal couldn't go anywhere since there weren't any trains or barges to move it places.

I've attached the summary of the immediately post-war US Strategic Bombing Survey that should be some brief but informative reading.

Trouble is there's not just the one plane. Something like what you mentioned happened when Francis Gary Powers overflew the USSR, and it turns out we could have sent half our bombers through the air defense gap that was formed by the time the Soviets reloaded their missiles. They launched 14, one hit the plane, and another hit the MiG-15 that had been sent to try and intercept, the pilot forced to eject and later dying of his injuries.

Those missiles weren't exactly small and easy to reload on their launchers, either:
View attachment 4387528
Plus, the USA has literally written all of the books on SEAD and Wild Weasel, and yes, radars do need to be emplaced and immobile to act as fire control, especially for the massive systems. Go take a look at the S-300 on Wikipedia and the size of those long-range radars. Even mounted on trucks like they are they still need to deploy, unpack, and connect to their networks... and all that means they can be spotted and targeted by drones and long-range cruise missiles, especially since Russian short-range air defense hasn't exactly proven up to the task of stopping those intercepts.
The SA-2 with early 1950's technology (and using Russian electronics that were 1940's) brought down a spy plane at 88000 feet.

Also look at the size of the missile and you can understand how it and the SA-3 were easily upgradable. Replace vacuum tubes with transistors in the 1960's loads more space for an improved/larger seeker, replace point to point wiring with PCB's in the 70's even more space for more powerful seekers.

SA-2/3 are long gone but SA-6's and Hawks particularly ones that were stored correctly are still dangerous, even to an F-35. That Serb SA-3 Battery that shot down the F-117 during the Kosovo 'war', survived unscathed, even though the radars had to be erected by hand, the Battery OC consistently kept them ahead of the Air Defense Suppression assets. That was actually a bigger achievement than shooting down the F-117.

Also forget this idea of SAM's maneuvering and making multiple approaches on a target as in some movies, essentially they're more like slightly maneuverable bullets.

the SA10 has 3 or 4 different search radars, some of them do need to erect a mast and deploy a stabilizer, but a search radar isn't necessary for a firing solution. The tracking radars are as far as I know on mobile batteries are fixed. Also the missiles can be command guided using something like a Thermal Imager or Forward looking infared. Again the idea that the Missiles have to get spot on isn't correct, 'Pray and Spray' has always worked in air defense.

Rybar on ruzzkie state TV: 'around half of VDV pedos are now in hell':

source: https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1620409293353918464

I didn't expect such losses, I assumed they lost about 20-30% of VDV. So what is the VDV intended for? Most of the shit the paratroopers got in the early stages of the war, before the NATO toys arrived
I love the way he says 50% like he can't be bothered to give an accurate figure. Is that 50% of the total strength, or actual riflemen in the platoons... I mean seriously what a fucking cunt.

If you ever get the chance read 'Inside the red army by Victor Suvorov, it's a brilliant insightful funny book about how the Soviet army and now the Russian army works.

Essentially if you're an infantry soldier and not in the VDV you're a fucking retard, that the Air Defence, Artillery, Signals and Armoured branch didn't want.

The VDV is mostly all volunteer, and with better pay and conditions. Also because they're division strength, they don't usually have to interact with the rest of the Army. They're completely self contained in a way that the British Para's and Royal Marines and US Army Rangers wish they were.

However all their Regimental and Divisional commanders are political appointees, and Putin was very conscious of the fact they could become some sort of Praetorian Guard, so he's made sure their leadership were all usually non VDV hacks.

The typical VDV soldier didn't care because they don't normally interact with anyone higher than their battalion commander. They did however care when the retards in charge told them to drop directly onto defended targets.

In case anyone doesn't know the VDV are the most heavily armed paratroopers in the world. However they don't drop with their weapons.

They should have been dropped a few miles away from their targets, the paratroopers landing by Helicopter, and their heavy weapons parachute dropped. They would have formed up and then assaulted the target (Incidentally this was what John Frost wanted to do at Arnhem but he also had a retard for a general).

Instead General DumbFucksi had them drop directly onto the airfields, using pilots that weren't used to dropping paratroopers. Even though they fucking knew their were Ukrainian military permanent stationed there (they thought they wouldn't fight).

Russia has good well trained soldiers, however Putin can't afford to put a decent General in charge because he knows the first thing any decent General would do is put a bullet in him.

Here's some analysis from a former Infantry Platoon Sgt.
 
Last edited:
The SA-2 with early 1950's technology (and using Russian electronics that were 1940's) brought down a spy plane at 88000 feet.
You keep missing the important that to do so took every missile in the area. I don't think firing 14 missiles at one F-35 is a winning ratio for the Russians, because if we send in half a squadron of 6 planes that's 84 missiles that need to be launched to take them all out. Can Russia spare 84 S-300 missiles?
Again the idea that the Missiles have to get spot on isn't correct, 'Pray and Spray' has always worked in air defense.
Again, how many missiles do you launch? I'm not saying it can't be done, but again, do the Russians have the ability to fire the necessary quantity without seriously compromising their defense against any follow-up attacks? If the Russians empty their launchers against an attack run of F-35's... congrats, now that whole area is open season for aircraft until the launchers are reloaded. Better hope you have enough interceptors on standby to plug the gap. Then again, that may be what the enemy wants.
 
I mean in a hypothetical US vs Iran war, wouldn't this be similar situation though?
No. Iran doesn't have the modern AA that Ukraine has, not in the quantities they had, and their airfleet is is even worse shape than Ukraines.

Plus doctrinal differences and the US having a true, global, bluewater navy (with no Bosporus transit issues). You can look at Desert Storm (and OIF to a lesser degree) for how this would play out: US will have satellite data of where every single Iranian SAM is, and they will all get at least one tomahawk, followed by carrier strikes. Anything high value probably gets a B-2 dropping its load on it as well.
The US could get submarines with missile tubes within range of anything in Iran. Russia only has diesel-electric attack submarines in the black sea, and no ability to get boomers in. Russia has missile frigates, but those would be vulnerable to Neptunes and drones.

Anyway, its all academic. The US wouldn't want to ground invade Iran, and if they did, they would want a 3rd party nation with a land border to stage troops in - I don't think they could find a taker currently.

One of the interesting aspects of the war has been the inability of Aircraft on either side to influence the battle.

Even the fighters that are flying sorties seem to be just taking off and firing their ordinance from within their own protected airspace. I don't think anybody expected that the role of 4th generation fighters would be to just be a shuttle service for cruise missiles that can't be ground launched.

Attack Helicopters are in even a worse situation, unable to operate in an environment where everybody and his dog has a MANPADS. The Russians are uniquely fucked because the wide variety of MANPADS used, means selecting a countermeasures packages would be extremely difficult (all those flares they're firing out have to be tuned to a specific threat, and if you see them dropping massive flares it's because they've given up and are just trying to overwhelm the seeker).

Anyway I think the provision of F16/Grippens or whatever is just a red herring, what the Ukrainians want, is for the Ammunition to keep flowing in, and they can just let their Artillery do the work.

Its because both sides are rotten with AA due to Anti-NATO mindset.
they know the American doctrine will be Air Superiority ASAP, and the only way to get that quickly will be bomb runs and wild weasel shenanigans. I'll admit I'm surprised the AA has been maintained. Even with resupply I figured Ukraine would have run out by now.

The other issue is both sides are now being protective of their air fleets; Russia kept their attack helos in the shit a lot longer than I thought they would, and they've paid heavily for it. I don't think Russia want to win in Ukraine bad enough to sacrifice their air superiority fighter fleet; that would take a decade or more to replace and leaves them strategically weak.

Grippens/F-16s aren't going to be much of any use unless delivered by the literal hundreds. They will be expensive to transfer and operate, and there will be losses. They will also likely be ROE'd from preventive strikes over the border, and S-400s could cover the entire front.

This situation has been going on since 2014. But trust me bro: Soviet era jets and their descendants are pure, refined shit.

It's not a matter of the difference between the old AK-47 and the modern AR. Or like between Abrams and T-64. The difference between any Su or MiG and an F-16 (let alone an F-35) is like the difference between a crossbow and an X-Wing.

Heavily modernized MiGs in NATO countries are still a category III aircraft, even compared to old Western machines. I would be concerned about the outcome of a fight between F-14s (are there any more flying anywhere?) with four MiGs.

The topic of Eurofighters, Mirage or, looking more exotically, Mitsubishi - it's hard for me to say, they would rather give way to any modern American design, but they would rather quickly ground the MiGs.
They'd ground enemy MiGs, but Russia has so much AA, even if you had a fleet full of only the top-tier wild weasels, it'd be months before Russia runs out of SAMs.

As the poster above me said, Russian planes are shit compared to Western ones. Go compare the Su-27 to its intended prey of the F-15, and the introduction years of each plane, and then laugh.
This is a 1992 post-Soviet design.
This is from 1979.

The F-15 is smaller, lighter, faster, more maneuverable, and somehow still manages to have more range and a higher maximum payload than a plane 13 years younger than it.

I read the autobiography of the MiG-25 defector from the 70s, and he said one of the reasons that factored into his decision to defect was how hopeless the Soviet aerospace program was. The F-14 didn't just outclass any soviet fighter, it outclassed anything they had in development.
And then he and his squadron saw the specs for the F-15.

According to a recent press conference with their President. Brazil will not be sending ammunition to Ukraine, because it doesn't want to get dragged into the war.
Can't fault a country for wanting to sit this one out.
CIA BTFO by their planted operative not following orders.


You keep missing the important that to do so took every missile in the area. I don't think firing 14 missiles at one F-35 is a winning ratio for the Russians, because if we send in half a squadron of 6 planes that's 84 missiles that need to be launched to take them all out. Can Russia spare 84 S-300 missiles?

Again, how many missiles do you launch? I'm not saying it can't be done, but again, do the Russians have the ability to fire the necessary quantity without seriously compromising their defense against any follow-up attacks? If the Russians empty their launchers against an attack run of F-35's... congrats, now that whole area is open season for aircraft until the launchers are reloaded. Better hope you have enough interceptors on standby to plug the gap. Then again, that may be what the enemy wants.

I'm with the Russiaboo on this one. Russia can spare the missiles, for a long time at least.
Russia has some 8000 5V55* missiles (S300) in stockpile, and the complete (or nearly complete) ability to make more completely on-shore. That's why they've been using them as AD bait when they do their mass strikes.

This is why I'm saying unless you give Ukraine something in the neighborhood of 200+ fighters, they aren't going to do anything. You'd need to completely saturate Russian air defenses, and then you run the risk Russia might decide their fighters are worth risking in interception action, and they have a massive weight in fighters.
 
Last edited:
1) How many nights of F-117s running train on the Serbs did it take them to bring down one single F-117* (which btw was also the night they had no EW support and also the Serbs had forward observers outside the one airfield that had them)
2) "just turn off the radar" comes with a whole litany of its own issues (if your radar is off, you aren't targeting shit)
3) This also forgets that modern ARMs don't need the enemy radar to be constantly emitting as modern variants can use stuff like IR or MMW homing to hit even a moving target once its gone "quiet"

*the F-117 itself being a largely defenseless late-70s/early-80s tech aircraft which has already been retired from service for over a decade
 
Last edited:
I'm with the Russiaboo on this one. Russia can spare the missiles, for a long time at least.
Russia has some 8000 5V55* missiles (S300) in stockpile, and the complete (or nearly complete) ability to make more completely on-shore. That's why they've been using them as AD bait when they do their mass strikes.
And what about in the immediate area? How many missiles can they toss up to take down NATO fighters that won't leave them with holes due to empty launchers? Holes the Ukrainians are almost certainly going to anticipate and plan to exploit. Yes, the Russians had plenty of SA-2 missiles in inventory after shooting down Powers. But how many actually loaded and ready in his AO?

Keep in mind the Russians gave orders that fighter pilots were to ram him if necessary, so it isn't like they were sparing any effort to shoot him down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back